Reviews challenge Kiowa County renewable-energy impact-fee study
SWCA estimates $1.316 million in mitigation for a 550-megawatt example project, compared with about $6.879 million in the county and THK study; Invenergy also objects to baseline costs, double-counting and existing mitigation obligations.
Two reviews challenge Kiowa County’s proposed renewable-energy development impact fee, arguing that the county’s study does not adequately connect the charges to project-created costs or show that they are proportional to those impacts.
A Sept. 10 review by SWCA says THK Associates’ study does not provide a legally defensible basis for several proposed fees under Colorado law. SWCA questioned charges for emergency medical services, hospitals, public transportation, coroner services, parks, landfill expansion and broad increases in county staffing and operating budgets.
For the study’s 550-megawatt example project, SWCA estimated total mitigation at about $1.316 million, or $2,393 per megawatt. The county and THK estimated about $6.879 million, or $12,507 per megawatt — a difference of roughly $5.563 million.
SWCA attributed the gap to assumptions it said needed more support, including hundreds of additional residents, a temporary workforce camp, large increases in service calls and long-term capital or operating improvements that could benefit county services beyond one project. Its alternative estimate included about $126,000 for transportation and roads, compared with $1.419 million in the county’s study; $600,000 for fire protection, compared with $1.61 million; and $190,000 for landfill and waste costs, compared with $2.035 million.
SWCA also estimated lower costs for law enforcement and emergency medical services and no costs under its current assumptions for water and sewer, housing, schools, public transportation, the coroner, general parks and recreation, and administrative and planning fees. The review said some categories could be revisited if a project includes a workforce camp, significant water use or documented increases in service demand.
In comments submitted Sept. 16, Invenergy urged the county and THK to revise the study before adopting a final fee. The company said the analysis should begin with the incremental costs caused by a specific project rather than existing county budgets, staffing levels, capital plans or general service needs.
Invenergy also asked the county to distinguish among wind, solar and battery-storage projects; prevent double-counting impacts from co-located solar and battery-storage facilities; and credit mitigation already required through 1041 land-use permits, road-use agreements and county reimbursement accounts. The company cited the Adobe Creek Solar and Towner East projects as examples of existing project-specific mitigation, financial assurance and cost-reimbursement obligations.
The comments urged the county to base any final charge on the project actually built, including its technology, capacity, construction profile, location and phasing. Invenergy proposed staged payments or escrow, with funds released as documented costs arise and unused amounts returned or released to the applicant. Its consultant gave preliminary estimates of about $126,000 for transportation and $190,000 for landfill costs, but Invenergy said those figures were not proposed project-specific fees.